X Factor
The new X-Men flick hits screens this weekend and by all accounts it will be a hit. Even Roger Ebert gives it a passing 3-star grade. And that is despite not at all understanding one of the main characters.
Ebert says Wolverine's "X-Acto knuckles seem pretty insignificant" compared to other powers in the comic book-inspired mutant universe. Of course, as all X-Men geeks know, Wolverine's true and ultimate super power is his "mutant healing ability" that renders him close to indestructible by conventional means. In short, Wolverine takes a beating, hurts like hell, and keeps coming.
That characteristic made the character immensely popular for decades and it was a major triumph that actor Hugh Jackman managed to bring all of Wolvie's pain, confusion, and rage together in a sympathetic way for the first X-Men movie. That film -- which functioned as a feature-length introduction to the world of the X-Men -- even went to great lengths to explain that Wolverine, aka Logan, was the subject of mysterious medical experiments as part of some terrible plan to use his healing mutation to turn him into a super-weapon. That thread is evidently picked up again in the new film and is based on the Weapon X storyline from the comic.
So it is beyond disappointing that Ebert could miss all this. In fact, I betting he didn't miss it. Ebert delights in pointing out the supposed fundamental contradictions in films and "X-Acto knuckles" is a good line. I surmise Ebert figured he'd have a little fun and no one would care.
Fair enough. Dopey summer popcorn movie. But I'll remember mutant healing powers the next time Ebert starts telling me who should win an Oscar.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Actually, missing major plot points and misreporting story details isn't that uncommon for Ebert. I frequently catch wrong information in his reviews, particularly when I've already seen a movie. On top of that, I think he's a dreadul reviewer who prefers telling the reader what movie he would have made instead of the one the director and producer wanted to make.
One of the most bizarre "reviews" I've ever read was one that he did a few weeks ago for a stand-up comic movie called, DsyFunKtional Family." The entire review was taken up by discussing whether the words "nigger" and "redneck" were offensive. He gave the movie three stars, but he never told the reader WHY it might be worth seeing -- or anything beyond an extended social discussion of those words.
Ebert has a lot of knowledge about film history, but I think he's far too concerned with telling the "lowlife" readers what they SHOULD appreciate instead of telling people whether they'd enjoy laying out some money for a new flick. He seems to think he's an art critic instead of providing a consumer service to people who just want to enjoy themselves.
Sorry. Rant over. 🙂
Actually, this is a common theme for Ebert--I've been noticing this kind of thing from him for years. He routinely makes errors in small details; referring to a character as being the sister rather than the mother, or confusing plot elements. As I recall, he seemed to have an enormous difficulty figuring out "Memento".
He does, however, have both a very broad and deep understanding of film and the literature and cultural underpinnings from which it emerges. He generally shies away from the Gene Shallat/Kenneth Turan review paradigm where the goal is to create the most catchy one-liners rather than to say anything significant about the plot or characters.
Still, if I want to get a straightforward and generally accurate review of a movie, I go here.
Why are we talking about this movie? The Matrix is almost out.
I'm waiting for a Spiderman sequel written by Peter Bagge.
Is Scully going to do a nude scene in this one?
Hav'nt seen the movie yet but the series is clearly moving backwards in Comic Book time ie it starts with the "God Loves, Man Kills" graphic novel which came out in the 80's and is working towards X-Men 137 from the late seventies (?), early eighties. Ebert did'nt catch that one either. I'll never forget this.
ebert is crazy. see his reviews of the first two TMNT films where he labours under the odd delusion that the turtles were invented for the NES game, and keeps referring to it:
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1990/03/539164.html
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1991/03/640888.html
or this review where he can't figure out that jason lee is playing two different characters in jay and silent bob strike back:
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1991/03/640888.html
his reviews often seem to have nothing to do with the film itself, for instance, his argument justifying the fact that he gave fellowship of the ring a lower rating than harry potter appears to be that he thinks hobbits are supposed to be fatter.
Dork
Dork
The good thing about Ebert versus a lot of film critics is that he reviews -a lot- of movies rather than one or two films a week. I think this is what makes him prone to error.
His complaint about TLOTR/Two Towers was that the books were a lot gentler than the movie (which they certainly are.)
X-Men 2 is good though . . .
Alkali, did you see after he got in the car crash in the first movie? His forehead healed almost instantly. So, it is in the movie. They just don't spell it out for you, they show it to you.
Actually, they did spell it out for you. Remember the scene where they are looking at the x-ray of his body.
Jean Grey explains that somone has fused adamantium to his bones. Storm asks how he could have survived that. And Grey says he has "uncharted" regenerative pwoers. She also explains that those pwoers make it impossible to determine how old he is. "He could be even older than you are, professor."
And Xavier notes that experimentation on mutants is not unheard of.
BTW, I know how to spell "powers." I don't know how to read my post before sending it. Well, I do know how, but ...
http://www.defectiveyeti.com/archives/000631.html
http://www.muc.muohio.edu/~natedogg/main.htm
He missed it. Or he didn't miss it. He missed it but he knew he missed it & delighted in missing it. Which means he didn't at all understand Wolverine. Which proves that he wasn't paying attention & we should remember this come Oscar time. Or maybe it doesn't.
Dopey popcorn, H & R style.
Actually, Ebert is fuzzy on a couple X2 plot points, especially the motivation for the attack on the White House early in the movie. Somtimes I wonder if Ebert really pays attention.
Jackman did a good job, but I still think Danzig should have gotten the nod.
I saw the first film and don't recall any extended discussion of Wolverine's healing capacity. Does X2 discuss it?
Will you guys please stop giving the group-thinking, P.C., collectivist Ebert so much attention and publicity?
If you're looking for a film reviewer worth his salt, try JAMES BERARDINELLI
http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/master.html
He'll truly give you stuff you can sink your teeth into. And he has a plethora of links and cross-links to related fare, to boot.
Furthermore, Berardinelli's got a keen-witted head on his shoulders. And he doesn't insult YOUR intelligence like Ebert does.
(I've stopped watching/reading Ebert years ago, for all of the reasons mentioned in your posts above, and more.)
(P.S. I miss you Gene Siskel. When you died, I stopped watching your pudgy contender.)
Never forget that Mr. Ebert's one foray into the world of filmmaking was his screenplay for "Return To The Valley Of The Dolls," a film so utterly godawful it probably would have made Mr. Edison himself reconsider his inventing of the medium.
EMAIL: pamela_woodlake@yahoo.com
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://cheap-web-hosting.1st-host.org
DATE: 01/20/2004 05:53:30
Gratitude is the most exquisite form of courtesy.